The Forerunner, Volume 1 (1909 1910)

C >> Charlotte Perkins Gilman >> The Forerunner, Volume 1 (1909 1910)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62

Sport and the canons of sport are so dominant in the masculine mind that
what they considered a deviation from these standards was of far more
importance than the question of fact involved; to say nothing of the
moral obliquity of one lying to the whole world, for money; and that at
the cost of another's hard-won triumph.

If women had condemned the conduct of one or the other as "not good
house-wifery," this would have been considered a most puerile comment.
But to be "unsportsmanlike" is the unpardonable sin.

Owing to our warped standards we glaringly misjudge the attitude of the
two sexes in regard to their amusements. Of late years more women than
ever before have taken to playing cards; and some, unfortunately, play
for money. A steady stream of comment and blame follows upon this. The
amount of card playing among men--and the amount of money lost and won,
does not produce an equivalent comment.

Quite aside from this one field of dissipation, look at the share of
life, of time, of strength, of money, given by men to their wide range
of recreation. The primitive satisfaction of hunting and fishing they
maintain at enormous expense. This is the indulgence of a most
rudimentary impulse; pre-social and largely pre-human, of no service
save as it affects bodily health, and of a most deterring influence on
real human development. Where hunting and fishing is of real human
service, done as a means of livelihood, it is looked down upon like any
other industry; it is no longer "sport."

The human being kills to eat, or to sell and eat from the returns; he
kills for the creature's hide or tusks, for use of some sort; or to
protect his crops from vermin, his flocks from depredation; but the
sportsman kills for the gratification of a primeval instinct, and under
rules of an arbitrary cult. "Game" creatures are his prey; bird, beast
or fish that is hard to catch, that requires some skill to slay; that
will give him not mere meat and bones, but "the pleasure of the chase."

The pleasure of the chase is a very real one. It is exemplified, in its
broad sense in children's play. The running and catching games, the
hiding and finding games, are always attractive to our infancy, as they
are to that of cubs and kittens. But the long continuance of this
indulgence among mature civilized beings is due to their masculinity.
That group of associated sex instincts, which in the woman prompts to
the patient service and fierce defence of the little child, in the man
has its deepest root in seeking, pursuing and catching. To hunt is more
than a means of obtaining food, in his long ancestry; it is to follow at
any cost, to seek through all difficulties, to struggle for and secure
the central prize of his being--a mate.

His "protective instincts" are far later and more superficial. To
support and care for his wife, his children, is a recent habit, in plain
sight historically; but "the pleasure of the chase" is older than that.
We should remember that associate habits and impulses last for ages upon
ages in living forms; as in the tree climbing instincts of our earliest
years, of Simian origin; and the love of water, which dates back through
unmeasured time. Where for millions of years the strongest pleasure a
given organism is fitted for, is obtained by a certain group of
activities, those activities will continue to give pleasure long after
their earlier use is gone.

This is why men enjoy "the ardor of pursuit" far more than women. It is
an essentially masculine ardor. To come easily by what he wants does
not satisfy him. He wants to want it. He wants to hunt it, seek it,
chase it, catch it. He wants it to be "game." He is by virtue of his
sex a sportsman.

There is no reason why these special instincts should not be gratified
so long as it does no harm to the more important social processes; but
it is distinctly desirable that we should understand their nature. The
reason why we have the present overwhelming mass of "sporting events,"
from the ball game to the prize fight, is because our civilization is so
overwhelmingly masculine. We shall criticize them more justly when we
see that all this mass of indulgence is in the first place a form of
sex-expression, and in the second place a survival of instincts older
than the oldest savagery.

Besides our games and sports we have a large field of "amusements" also
worth examining. We not only enjoy doing things, but we enjoy seeing
them done by others. In these highly specialized days most of our
amusement consists in paying two dollars to sit three hours and see
other people do things.

This in its largest sense is wholly human. We, as social creatures, can
enjoy a thousand forms of expression quite beyond the personal. The
birds must each sing his own song; the crickets chirp in millionfold
performance; but human being feels the deep thrill of joy in their
special singers, actors, dancers, as well as in their own personal
attempts. That we should find pleasure in watching one another is
humanly natural, but what it is we watch, the kind of pleasure and the
kind of performance, opens a wide field of choice.

We know, for instance, something of the crude excesses of aboriginal
Australian dances; we know more of the gross license of old Rome; we
know the breadth of the jokes in medieval times, and the childish
brutality of the bull-ring and the cockpit. We know, in a word, that
amusements vary; that they form a ready gauge of character and culture;
that they have a strong educational influence for good or bad. What we
have not hitherto observed is the predominant masculine influence on our
amusements. If we recall once more the statement with regard to
entertaining anecdotes, "There are thirty good stories in the world, and
twenty-nine of them cannot be told to women," we get a glaring sidelight
on the masculine specialization in jokes.

"Women have no sense of humor" has been frequently said, when "Women
have not a masculine sense of humor" would be truer. If women had
thirty "good stories" twenty-nine of which could not be told to men, it
is possible that men, if they heard some of the twenty-nine, would not
find them funny. The overweight of one sex has told in our amusements
as everywhere else.

Because men are further developed in humanity than women are as yet,
they have built and organized great places of amusement; because they
carried into their humanity their unchecked masculinity, they have made
these amusements to correspond. Dramatic expression, is in its true
sense, not only a human distinction, but one of our noblest arts. It is
allied with the highest emotions; is religious, educational, patriotic,
covering the whole range of human feeling. Through it we should be able
continually to express, in audible, visible forms, alive and moving,
whatever phase of life we most enjoyed or wished to see. There was a
time when the drama led life; lifted, taught, inspired, enlightened.
Now its main function is to amuse. Under the demand for amusement, it
has cheapened and coarsened, and now the thousand vaudevilles and
picture shows give us the broken fragments of a degraded art of which
our one main demand is that it shall make us laugh.

There are many causes at work here; and while this study seeks to show
in various fields one cause, it does not claim that cause is the only
one. Our economic conditions have enormous weight upon our amusements,
as on all other human phenomena; but even under economic pressure the
reactions of men and women are often dissimilar. Tired men and women
both need amusement, the relaxation and restful change of irresponsible
gayety. The great majority of women, who work longer hours than any
other class, need it desperately and never get it. Amusement,
entertainment, recreation, should be open to us all, enjoyed by all.
This is a human need, and not a distinction of either sex. Like most
human things it is not only largely monopolized by men, but masculized
throughout. Many forms of amusement are for men only; more for men
mostly; all are for men if they choose to go.

The entrance of women upon the stage, and their increased attendance at
theatres has somewhat modified the nature of the performance; even the
"refined vaudeville" now begins to show the influence of women. It
would be no great advantage to have this department of human life
feminized; the improvement desired is to have it less masculized; to
reduce the excessive influence of one, and to bring out those broad
human interests and pleasures which men and women can equally
participate in and enjoy.

HIS AGONY

A Human Being goes past my house
Day after day, hour after hour,
Screaming in agony.
It is dreadful to hear him.
He beats the air with his hands, blindly, despairingly.
He shrieks with pain.
The passers-by do not notice him.
The woman who is with him does not notice him.
The policeman does not notice him.
No ambulance comes ringing.
No doctor rushes out of a house--no crowd collects.
He screams and screams.
No one notices him.
I bear him coming again.
It is terrible--one day after another.
I look out of my window.
Yes--the same Human Being--the same agony.
I cannot bear it. I rush down--out into the street.
I say to the woman who is with him--
"Why do you not do something?"
She says there is nothing to be done. She resents my interference.
She is a hired person, hired by the owner of the Human Being.
That is why no one does anything--
We dare not interfere with the Owner.
He is a very young Human Being,
That is why no one notices--
We are used to the sound of agony and the indifference of hired persons.

COMMENT AND REVIEW

The spread of social ethics among the medical profession is cause for
great rejoicing. Long and justly celebrated as benefactors of humanity,
and upholding with devotion the high ideals of their profession, they
have now begun to widen their usefulness and extend their ideals under
the general social awakening of our time.

Social sanitation is a rapidly extending process; as fast as our
discoveries reveal the nature of disease or new remedies therefor, our
governments, local and national, are beginning to safeguard the
community.

In the general movement to lengthen and strengthen human life, doctors
are necessarily most prominent because of their special knowledge. They
have long been necessary. they have become more and more valuable, but
their usefulness is still checked (as is true of all of us) by the
persistence of conservatism and old ideas.

Very recently the advance of bacteriological science has thrown new
light on a group of especially dangerous diseases; and still more
recently the doctors themselves, with a splendid exertion of social
conscience against tradition and habit, have begun to disseminate this
new light to the general public.

Those special payments of the "wages of sin," spoken of in varying
euphemisms, most commonly as "social diseases" are now better understood
by physicians; and they are making noble efforts to spread this
understanding among the people. Their efforts are gravely hindered by
two obstacles; one the professional tradition known as "the medical
secret," the other the universal prevalence of that primordial
superstition--the sex tabu.

This last belongs to the very deepest sedimentary deposit in the human
mind. The first rules the lowest savage peoples began to make were the
sex tabus and food tabus. Secrecy, mystery, all manner of childish
hocus pocus, were used to establish these primitive ideas; and the
weight of that black past is upon its yet.

The less developed a race, the less educated a class, the more solemn
and earnest they are in preserving the sex tabus; whereas with wide
scientific knowledge this field of facts is seen to be like others;
important and worth understanding; but not as special arcana to be
concealed and avoided.

If the doctors come forward to tell us how the typhoid bacillus is
disseminated, how dangerous it is, and how it is to be avoided, we are
interested, grateful, and more or less willing to profit by the
instruction. But when they try to tell us how the gonococcus attacks
humanity, how dangerous it, and how it is to be avoided, we say, "Sh!
That is something you mustn't talk about!"

To the credit of the profession they have kept on talking, many of them.
To the credit of some of our bravest and wisest editors the talk has
been widely published. And right here I wish to pay a well deserved
tribute to the "Ladies' Home Journal," which ought to have a Nobel prize
for great public service.

That paper--long scorned by me as the arch-type of all small
ultra-feminine backwardness, did the bravest thing a paper can do,
risked its whole position by flying in the face of the public and
printing the clearest, fullest, most enlightening accounts of the
present status of these "social diseases," their terrible effects, and
our duty toward them. It lost subscribers by the thousand and hundred
thousand, but it did the work; and did it better than any other
publication could; not only on account of its enormous circulation, but
because it went into the homes of pious and unenlightened persons who
would never have seen the information in more progressive magazines.

The negative inertia and positive resistance of the popular mind cannot
forever resist the constantly increasing pressure of knowledge now
poured forth on this subject.

But there is that other obstacle--the tradition of secrecy in the
medical profession.

Doctors take the Hipprocratic oath. They solemnly swear not to reveal
the confidences of their patients; or, more properly their innocent
confidences. They are not bound like priests in the confessional; if a
patient tells the doctor he has poisoned his mother or is about to
poison his father, the doctor is not bound to conceal the facts.

Nevertheless, if a patient afflicted with one of these highly contagious
diseases tells his doctor that he has poisoned his wife, or is to poison
his child--the doctor feels professionally bound to keep silence.

What puzzles an outsider is to see why the medical mind discriminates so
sharply here between the conduct required in cases of small pox or
scarlet fever, and in this case. If you tell the doctor you have
leprosy--there's nothing sacred about that. Off with you to the pest
house, at any cost of pain and shame to you or your family. Is the
whole community to be exposed to infection just to save your feelings?

So even with measles, with diphtheria, with yellow fever. The privacy
of the home is invaded, families are ruthlessly separated, the strong
arm of the law is reached out to protect the public against this danger;
and the doctor, so far from conniving with the patient, is legally
required to record all cases of this sort.

Now where is the difference?

These special diseases are more dangerous--and far more common, than
most of these mentioned above; and their effects, hereditary as well as
contagious, of measureless evil.

We are told that the difference is one of moral obliquity.

But surely there is no veil of secrecy about moral obliquity! If a man
is a thief or a murderer we do not respect his confidence and conceal
his offence. The papers justify their fierce blazonry of crimes and
sins by saying that it strengthens public opinion--protects the people.
No, it is not because of moral obliquity.

It is for precisely the same reason that you must not make inquiries of
a Chinaman as to his wife's health, or see a Turkish lady without her
veil--it is "improper!"

The doctors and the boards of health together can soon change this silly
convention, and the physician be required to register every case of this
sort as he does in other contagious diseases.

All this is called up at this time by a little book named "Never Told
Tales," sent me by the author, Dr. William Robinson of New York City.

It is a brave little book. Dr. Robinson is not a novelist by
profession, but his heart is so wrung and his brain so roused by the
hidden tragedy he sees all about him that he has reached out into
literature for aid. Everywhere this mischief creeps about, centering
rankly in every large city; carried everywhere by those infected;
bringing death, deformity, and hideous diseases into thousands of
innocent families; spreading, growing, and nobody saying anything about
it!

Dr. Robinson has said something. He has thrown out the little book of
stories, hoping that in the vivid narrative form it may reach and appeal
to those who would not read "medical literature"; or even the new and
impressive books now to be had on this subject.

For solid information of a clear and serious sort, readable and clean,
Dr. Prince Morrow's book, "Social Diseases and Marriage" is the best I
know. Dr. Morrow is the founder of the American Society of Sanitary and
Moral Prophylaxis in New York City; a splendid effort on the part of the
medical profession to spread even to unwilling ears this necessary
knowledge.

The New York Federation of Women's Clubs has lately taken action on the
subject; passing resolutions urging in this state an amendment to the
Domestic Relations law requiring every marriage certificate to be
accompanied by a medical certificate also, certifying the applicant to
be free from contagious disease. This is already required in several
western states. It seems a simple and righteous proposition. If a man
wishes to join the army or navy, or to have his life insured, he has to
pass a physical examination, and is refused if he is unfit. Is not
marriage and parenthood as important as carrying life insurance?

There is a large and growing interest in these matters among intelligent
women; and it is a natural and proper one. If a woman is to unite her
life with a man, she surely has a right to know whether her own life is
to be risked by the union. If she looks forward to motherhood as every
normal woman should, she should be safeguarded from this terrible
possibility.

It is time there was wide, full public knowledge on this subject.

PERSONAL PROBLEMS

This from a recent newspaper: "When a reporter called at the address,
Miss Doe or Mrs. Roe appeared in a highly nervous state as a result of
her struggles during the day to keep out of the way of reporters. It
took half an hour's argument to induce her to acknowledge the marriage."

As the whole story treats of this lady's marriage, the calling her
"Miss" appears to be a needlessly elaborate insult; but what seems most
prominent here is the naive brutality of the inquisitor.

Here is a runaway match; the groom being a student and the son of a
somewhat prominent man; it is a bit of gossip, of no general importance
whatever, the publication of which is sure to cause intense distress to
the bride, the groom, the father, and the heads of the institution where
the young man was being educated.

In pursuit of this utterly unnecessary "news" the young bride is hounded
into a "highly nervous condition" by the person hired to meddle in
private affairs for trade purposes. The effect of her previous
"struggle to keep out of the way" is calmly noted by the successful
intruder; he forces himself in where he was not wanted; he remains
admittedly against the will of the occupier; he talks like a book-agent
and wears out the already nervous woman till he makes her "acknowledge
the marriage."

As a personal problem, why should any citizen submit to be exploited in
this manner for trade purposes?

As a public problem, why should any tradesman be allowed to practice
this sort of psychic assault and battery?

The position was well expressed by a wise man as follows: "If the
newspaper is a public business for public service, by what right do
personal owners make fortunes out of it? If it is a personal business
for personal profit, by what right does it meddle with my private
affairs?"

This might be made an extremely debatable question: What right has
anyone to keep to himself some process, drug, or special knowledge of
real value to humanity? Patents or royalties may be allowed, with full
freedom to use, but has he the right to conceal and withhold his
benefaction? Or suppose again, that one has some distinction of no use
to humanity, yet of sufficient interest to the gaping crowd to command a
price for exhibition; if one is a Bearded Lady, say, or a Living
Skeleton, or a Fat Boy, and if one makes a living by exhibiting these
peculiarities and selling one's photograph--then would it be just to
allow any and every photographer to forcibly take one's picture and sell
it?

Further, suppose one has a private history rich in biographical
revelations, and intended to publish the same, after the manner of those
major and minor ego-maniacs of the astounding "confessions"; then is it
right that the public scandal pedlars be allowed to chase their prey
into his or her private house, and by a sort of "third degree" process
wring from the exhausted and irritated victim these biographical
tidbits, that they may go and sell them to their own profit?

"The public is interested in these things," we are gravely told by these
who thus make a living.

The Public might, conceivably, be interested in the table manners of
certain noted persons, or their expressions while shaving, or "doing
their hair."

Is it therefore permissible that dealers in picture post-cards, or
makers of moving picture. shows, come in with cameras at mealtimes or
toilette hours, and photograph the lifted soupspoon, the purchased hair,
or cheek stretched under the razor?

The right of society to the best service of all, we must accept as
paramount; but what right has a private individual to exploit the
secrets of other private individuals merely for his own financial
profit? And how can he claim "social service" as his excuse, when what
he does is no benefit but an injury to society?

Do we not need a wide and thorough revision of our ideas as to social
and personal rights?

[Advertisement]

THE FORERUNNER
CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN'S MAGAZINE
CHARLTON CO., 67 WALL ST., NEW YORK

AS TO PURPOSE:

_What is The Forerunner?_ It is a monthly magazine, publishing stories
short and serial, article and essay; drama, verse, satire and sermon;
dialogue, fable and fantasty, comment and review. It is written
entirely by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

_What is it For?_ It is to stimulate thought: to arouse hope, courage
and impatience; to offer practical suggestions and solutions, to voice
the strong assurance of better living, here, now, in our own hands to
make.

_What is it about?_ It is about people, principles, and the questions
of every-day life; the personal and public problems of to-day. It gives
a clear, consistent view of human life and how to live it.

_Is it a Woman's magazine?_ It will treat all three phases of our
existence--male, female and human. It will discuss Man, in his true
place in life; Woman, the Unknown Power; the Child, the most important
citizen.

_Is it a Socialist Magazine?_ It is a magazine for humanity, and
humanity is social. It holds that Socialism, the economic theory, is
part of our gradual Socialization, and that the duty of conscious
humanity is to promote Socialization.

_Why is it published?_ It is published to express ideas which need a
special medium; and in the belief that there are enough persons
interested in those ideas to justify the undertaking.

AS TO ADVERTISING:

We have long heard that "A pleased customer is the best advertiser."
The Forerunner offers to its advertisers and readers the benefit of this
authority. In its advertising department, under the above heading, will
be described articles personally known and used. So far as individual
experience and approval carry weight, and clear truthful description
command attention, the advertising pages of The Forerunner will be
useful to both dealer and buyer. If advertisers prefer to use their own
statements The Forerunner will publish them if it believes them to be
true.

AS TO CONTENTS:

The main feature of the first year is a new book on a new subject with a
new name:--

_"Our Androcentric Culture."_ this is a study of the historic effect on
normal human development of a too exclusively masculine civilization.
It shows what man, the male, has done to the world: and what woman, the
more human, may do to change it.

_"What Diantha Did."_ This is a serial novel. It shows the course of
true love running very crookedly--as it so often does--among the
obstructions and difficulties of the housekeeping problem--and solves
that problem. (NOT by co-operation.)

Among the short articles will appear:

"Private Morality and Public Immorality."
"The Beauty Women Have Lost"
"Our Overworked Instincts."
"The Nun in the Kitchen."
"Genius: Domestic and Maternal."
"A Small God and a Large Goddess."
"Animals in Cities."
"How We Waste Three-Fourths Of Our Money."
"Prize Children"
"Kitchen-Mindedness"
"Parlor-Mindedness"
"Nursery-Mindedness"